JPD 22 S. Banerjee AR (Ct.) Judgment on 29.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya WPA 1247 of 2026 M/s. Kumar Enterprise Versus The Union of India & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Arnab Chakraborty Ms. Pooja Sah Mr. A. R. Chowdhury Ms. Keya Kundu For the respondents : Mr. Ratan Banik Heard on : 29.07.2026 Judgement on : 29.07.2026 Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.: 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated June 23, 2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, CC(P), West Bengal, Kolkata thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for provisional release of the seized goods. 2 2. Petitioner despatched a consignment of Dried Arecanuts and while in transit the consignment was seized and detained by the respondent no. 2 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by issuing a detention memo dated March 24, 2026. The samples were sent for testing before the Arecanut Research and Development Foundation („ARDF‟, for short) by the concerned Superintendent of Customs. 3. The petitioner filed an application under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 praying for provisional release of the seized items. The prayer of the petitioner for provisional release of the seized items stood rejected by the order dated June 23, 2026. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the test report of the samples sent to the ARDF indicates that the Arecanuts resembles the Indian Arecanut and such nuts are good in quality. He further submits that the Additional Commissioner of Customs while considering the prayer of the petitioner for provisional release of seized items, did not take into consideration such test report but rejected the prayer of the petitioner by placing reliance on a test report dated April 22, 2026 of the National Food Laboratory, FSSAI, Kolkata. He submits that the test report dated April 22, 2026 states that the seized goods do not conform to the prescribed standards and are unsafe for human consumption. He submits that when the test report of the ARDF indicates that the seized items resembles Indian origin, the seizure 3 of goods lacks the foundational basis. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to submit an affidavit of undertaking before the concerned respondent authority that the said goods shall not be sold in domestic market for human consumption. 5. Mr. Chakraborty places reliance upon an order dated July 3, 2026 passed by a coordinate Bench in WPA 850 of 2026 in the case of FMR Agro Industries Private Limited –Vs.- Union of India & Ors., in support of his contention that on an identical fact situation the coordinate Bench directed provisional release of the seized articles subject to compliance of certain directions. 6. Mr. Banik, learned advocate appearing for the Customs authority submits that the test report of the National Food Laboratory FSSAI, Kolkata states that the seized articles are of substandard quality and are unsafe for human consumption. He further submits that the Additional Commissioner of Customs after having noticed the notification dated February 14, 2023 held that the seized goods were not indigenously procured. He submits that the said respondent authority passed a reasoned order and for such reason this Court should not interfere with such order. He further submits that the order under challenge is an appellable one and the petitioner should be relegated to the appellate authority. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. 4 8. This Court is conscious of the well-settled proposition of law that the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal against the decision of a Court, tribunal or authorities to correct errors of fact and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. 9. It is now judicially settled that availability of an alternative appellate remedy cannot be an absolute embargo upon the High Court to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. It is well-settled that despite the existence of an alternative remedy, it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. 11. It is not in dispute that the Superintendent of Customs had sent the samples to ARDF for the purpose of testing the same. It would be relevant to extract the test report dated April 16, 2026 of ARDF: “Observations: 5 The sample of Arecanuts/Betelnuts supplied is of Red Whole types. The immature Arecanuts/Betelnus are harvested, dehusked, boiled, coated with betel nut tannin and dried. It is a mixture of round, oval or flat nuts and medium in size. The cut portion of Arecanuts/ Betelnuts exhibits uniform dark brown alternating with white colour inside. This resembles to the Arecanuts/ Betelnuts of India. The nuts are of good quality. Final Conclusion: The samples of Arecanuts/ Betelnuts received from the Superintendent of Customs, Office of the Superintendent of Customs, Birpara Customs Preventive Unit, Makrapara, Alipurduar, WB vide letter no. C. No. VIII(10)/IMP/CL/ CUS/BRPU/2025-26/40 dt. 25.03.2026 (S/C/ No. 10/IMP/CL/CUS/ BRPU/2025-26 dt. 24.03.2026) under its seal has been tested and found that it is Red whole type of Arecanuts/ Betelnuts and resembled to Indian Arecanuts/ Betelnuts. The nuts are good in quality. Date: 16-04-2026” 12. After going through the aforesaid test report this Court finds that it has been specifically stated in the said report that the seized articles resembled to Indian Arecanuts and the nuts are good in quality. 13. An authority while deciding an issue before it has to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the materials available before it. Such authority has to assign reasons for not relying upon a particular piece of evidence or material while passing an order. 6 14. After going through the impugned order dated June 23, 2026 this Court finds that the said test report has not been considered by the Additional Commissioner of Customs while deciding the application of the petitioner praying for provisional release of goods. 15. Non consideration of the test report of ARDF vitiated the decision making process as the procedure required for the decision has not been followed. For such reason, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and the writ petition is entertained instead of relegating the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy. 16. The authority only considered the test report dated April 22, 2026 of the National Food Laboratory FSSAI, Kolkata insofar as the said seized articles conforms to the prescribed standards as per the Food Products Standard and Food Addictive Regulations, 2011 and are safe for human consumption or not. The test report states that the goods have been found to contain damaged nuts beyond permissible limits and are unfit for consumption under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 17. At this juncture it would be relevant to take note of the submission of Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to submit an undertaking that the seized goods, if released, would not be sold in domestic market for the purpose of human consumption. 7 18. In view of the test report issued by the Arecanut Research and Development Foundation this Court is of the considered view that the seizure for the consignment lacks the foundational basis as the said test report has specifically stated that the seized goods resemble to be of Indian origin. 19. The coordinate Bench in a more or less identical fact situation held that there was no justification for the customs authority to continue retaining the seized goods merely on the basis of the test report of the National Food Laboratory stating that the seized Arecanuts were not fit for human consumption when an expert report obtained by the Customs authorities themselves unequivocally indicates that the seized Arecanuts resemble Arecanuts of Indian origin. 20. For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court holds that continued detention of the seized articles is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 21. For such reason, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order rejecting the prayer for provisional release of the seized goods. 22. Accordingly, the order of the Additional Commissioner of Customs, CC(P), West Bengal dated June 23, 2026 is set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions: 8 i) The competent authority of the Customs shall provisionally release the seized Arecanuts to the petitioner in terms of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 within a period of four weeks from the receipt of a server copy of this order subject to the petitioner furnishing necessary bond, security and other requirements to the satisfaction of the Customs authorities in that regard within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of server copy of this order; ii) The petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking before the Customs authority stating that the provisionally released Arecanuts shall not be used for human consumption and shall be utilized exclusively for industrial purpose; and 23. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)